501–510 of 951 posts
did anyone else wear their unphilosophical sadistic karma-denying internet-can't-hurt-me hat to intentionally skew phony statistics because they thought everyone else would do the same?
I'm surprised to see the popular answer to Question 3. > Oh no! A trolley is heading towards 5 people. You can pull the lever to divert it to the other track, but then your life savings will be destroyed. What do you do? Over 70% chose to pull the lever and destroy their life savings. People die of preventable causes in developing countries today. By choosing not to donate your life savings today to help them, you ar…
This kind of highlights a subtle interactive design or user experience component of the Trolley problem. Part of the Trolley Problem is that the choice is between an action or inaction. But these problems, or the first one at least, have two buttons. So you're making a choice. Yeah, some might argue it's a technicality. But what if you put the Do Nothing choice on a timer? What if you made it an asynchronous "Problem…
These trolley problems are the stuff of nightmares wherein one becomes a world leader. If all outcomes are horrible, then your lever pulls or inactions will always be subject to valid condemnation. If you take a risk, you are judged by the outcome, not whether your choice was a good calculation.
A bit of both, for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are discounting the simple possibility that 70% of respondents do not have any significant "life savings" to speak of.
Not to mention a lot of people measure account their wealth in more than just money. Reminds me of Richard Posner, former Chief Justice of the Seventh Appelate court. His essay on how poor people have no wealth so you need the threat of prison to keep them in line. And how middle class people you only need the threat of impoverishment to keep them in line. So you can just fine them. And wealthy people only need the t…
People operating on different sets of facts!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's interesting. I didn't consider any legal liabilities at all, and would easily break the law in order to sacrifice one person in trade for five people. I also didn't consider doing "nothing", not pulling the lever was also an act, and I didn't "see" any options doing nothing. Fun to see how differently people approach these ones :)
Actual law strongly discerns between action and inaction. For example the Polish penal code says you can only be criminally liable for a result of inaction only if you had a specific legal obligation to prevent it.
Can't believe how many people would prefer condemning passengers to an eternal trolley ride than explode them. True evil right there
Unless "eternal" means immortality, in which case it's even better than life!
This kind of highlights a subtle interactive design or user experience component of the Trolley problem. Part of the Trolley Problem is that the choice is between an action or inaction. But these problems, or the first one at least, have two buttons. So you're making a choice. Yeah, some might argue it's a technicality. But what if you put the Do Nothing choice on a timer? What if you made it an asynchronous "Problem…
For cases where you did nothing, you did not kill anyone. The trolley did.